Category Archives: Women’s Rights

According to news reports former Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s warning women the government’s going to start telling American families how many children they can have, and it’s all part of what’s really behind President Obama’s contraception mandate; and where did she make this astounding claim? On the only network in the country where such things could be made, Glenn Beck’s network, GBTV, on the show “Real News From The Blaze.” No doubt her newest claims worried the dozens of viewers watching the program.

“I think that it is a mistake for us to get caught in a trap that the left would love to have us dance in,” she said, adding that the “war on women” was an appeal to a “group.”

“Women have a lot to lose under ‘Obamacare,’ and I’ll give you an example,” she continued. “If you want to go into specifics, what the government can give, the government can take away. It certainly isn’t beyond the pale to think, in light of Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary — she said that it’s important that we have contraceptives because that prevents pregnancy, and pregnancy is more expensive to the federal government.”

But wait, there’s more; once she got into her groove she kept following her own twisted theory to its conclusion. “Going with that logic, according to our own Health and Human Services secretary, it isn’t far-fetched to think that the president of the United States could say ‘We need to save health care expenses. The federal government will only pay for one baby to be born in the hospital per family, or two babies to be born per family.’ That could happen. We think it couldn’t?”

When anchor Amy Holmes asked if she was really suggesting the government might one day advocate a one-child policy like China, Bachmann replied.

“What I’m saying is that now that we know the president of the United States, unilaterally, can tell insurance companies, ‘You must offer the morning-after abortion pill, you must offer sterilizations, you must offer contraceptives free to the recipients of those products, because we tell you to’ (which means they’re effectively setting the price, as well), that says that whoever the health care dictator, could conceivably make that order, as well,” she said.

Bachmann’s clearly been missing the spot light she had during her failed presidential folly and now she’s pandering to the farthest of the far right, hence appearing on Beck’s “thriving” internet network; it’s the only place “Krazy” is welcomed these days, and falling back on tried and true conservative tactic of fear, gloom and despair.

No one’s going to dictate to American families how many children they can have, and no one’s going to force sterilization or contraception on women; this is just more of the same Bachmann we’ve all come to know and love.

Christian conservatives are screaming about contraception being forced on them by the President, but refuse to condemn Rush Limbaugh for saying vile and degrading things about women.

Don’t preach “family values” to me until I see you condemn Limbaugh.

Don’t preach “religious” freedom to me until you condemn Limbaugh

Don’t claim to be the “moral” majority until you condemn Limbaugh.

You scream about “values” and about “religion” and then allow someone like this to be your hero; to be your spokesman?

You call someone a hero who calls a young woman a “slut” and “prostitute” and who attacks her for three full broadcast days, more than 9 hours of accusations and vilifying, asking to see the videos of her alleged promiscuity?

Want to know where the GOTP candidates really stand on “family values” and how they view women?

As a Latter-day Saint, where’s Mitt Romney’s outrage?

As Catholics, where’s Rick Santorum’s and Newt Gingrich’s outrage?

I’m sorry, I can’t see your “values” because there’s a forest of hypocrisy in my way.

According to news reports, former Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential candidate John McCain said it’s “totally unacceptable” for Rush Limbaugh to call a law student a “slut” in the political furor over requiring that women get birth control coverage free of charge.

Speaking out on the CBS program `This Morning,’ the McCain said Limbaugh’s statements were unacceptable “in every way” and “should be condemned” by people across the political spectrum.

While it’s true Limbaugh has attempted to apologize for the three day long attack on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke the controversy continues to storm around him with more than 20 advertisers and two radio stations dropping his program.

The current crop of GOTP presidential candidates are desperately scrambling to distance themselves from Rush’s comments but Democrats are in a feeding frenzy, seizing on the flap to accuse conservatives of waging a “war on women.”

Limbaugh’s wrong, that’s all, he’s wrong; no ifs, ands or buts. There’s no justification for his attack on Fluke and his so-called apology clearly isn’t cutting it. He needs to man up and do the right thing; oh wait, what am I saying?

According to news reports Rush Limbaugh’s allegedly apologizing for defaming Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke when he said on his program, “What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”

On Limbaugh’s blog he makes his rather feeble attempt to right this huge wrong;

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”

Excuse me, he “did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke? How else does someone interpret, “What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”?

He didn’t mean a personal attack, what else is it when you call someone a slut and a prostitute?

El Rushbo continues “apologizing“, “I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

At least he did manage to sincerely apologize, which is more than anyone without half their brains tied behind their backs ever thought he’d do, and certainly his entire statement would mean a lot more if he’d managed to just say the last line. But no, Rush had to try to justify calling a woman a slut and a prostitute by claiming it was an “attempt to be humorous”. What kind of humor is it when you call a woman a slut and a prostitute? Clearly Limbaugh’s never matured past the 10th grade.

Fact is there’s no justification for Limbaugh calling Ms. Fluke a slut and prostitute, and Limbaugh’s belated apology – made after pressure was brought to bear by advertisers leaving his show – demonstrates he’s still a poor excuse for a man.

Right wing uber-conservative blow hole, Rush Limbaugh has once again shown his red neck classless upbringing calling the woman who was denied the right to speak at a controversial contraception hearing a “slut”.

Limbaugh’s current sexist target is Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School, who was invited as a Democratic witness at a Congressional hearing about the Obama administration’s contraception policy. However, Darrell Issa, the uber-conservative Republican Tea Party (GOTP) committee chair at the hearing, prevented her from speaking, while only allowing a series of men to testify about the policy. Who in their right mind would think the GOTP House would, should or could be so openly obtuse and think no one would notice?

Reportedly Fluke was allowed to eventually testify before a Democratic hearing, and spoke about the need for birth control for both reproductive and broader medical reasons. She testified in particular a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts.

“Can you imagine if you were her parents how proud…you would be?” he said. “Your daughter … testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope.”

Personally, I’d be very proud of either of my daughter were testifying about their rights before Congress.

“What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”

Limbaugh needs to pull his head out of his fourth point of contact; if she was my daughter I’d be immensely proud, and I’d have already popped him square in his blow hole and served him with a law suit.

Where’s the outrage? Where’s Laura Ingraham’s call for Limbaugh to be suspended and demand that he apologize to this young lady? Or is it OK to call progressive woman sluts? I guess it’s just another case of right-wing hypocrisy.

The New York Times is reporting the University of California, Berkeley is facing some possible trouble over having cut too many sports from its athletic programs having led to a huge disparity in the total amount of “opportunity” available now at the school for woman athletes.

According to the New York Times, Cal would have to add 50 women's positions and cut 80 men's positions to be back in compliance with Title IX, but the university is now considering reversing its earlier decision.

I’m sorry, but into today’s athletic world there’s really no excuse for any college – or high school – to be making these kinds of mistakes. The school’s Athletic Director (AD) Sandy Barbour claims they were talking Title IX all through the decision making process; I’m sorry, but clearly that’s not the case, or if it is then she’s clearly incompetent, because, if the school’s athletic department had been talking about it the school wouldn’t have made such stupid cuts, plain and simple.

The pathetically sad truth here is it’s bad enough when girls have to fight against the backward mentalities of male ADs stuck in an episode of Mad Men, but the pain is more deeply felt when it’s a woman AD making the cuts. It makes you wonder how any woman connected with athletics in today’s world can be so ignorant about Title IX?

“Kristen Galles, a lawyer who represents athletes suing colleges for Title IX violations, questioned the logic behind Cal’s decision, adding that the university might have exposed itself to a lawsuit by the female athletes whose teams are cut.”

Wow, ya think? Of course it’s opened itself up to a law suit; you can’t cut programs so disproportionately and not end up with at most a law suit, and at the very least complaints to the U.S. Department of Education. Title IX isn’t about how many teams a particular school has, it’s about how many opportunities exist for the individual athletes, and those opportunities have to be proportional to the total percentage of undergraduate students enrolled, by gender.

“It doesn’t make sense to be cutting any women’s sports if their numbers are that bad,” Galles said. “These schools do not get sued for not offering enough sports; they get sued when they’re dumb enough to cut women’s teams.”

Barbour said her program should be measured by the number of opportunities it provided to women — 388 in the 2009-10 academic year, compared with 577 male slots — not by their proportion to male athletes. “That’s larger than a lot of athletic programs, period,” she said.

Barbour’s own statements demonstrate how out of touch she is about the law and that she doesn’t understand how Title IX works.

“Assuming that the teams stay cut, we are going to have to really grapple … with intercollegiate athletics about what this means if we are going to be within the guidelines,” said Meg Conkey, an anthropology professor who is a co-chairwoman of the gender equity and diversity subcommittee of the University Athletics Board, a Cal advisory group. “I think everybody is waiting for the proverbial other shoe to drop.”

This ain’t rocket science professor; if the teams stay cut, and nothing else changes, not only will you not be within the “guidelines”, you’ll be way outside of the box. Title IX isn’t guidelines, this isn’t the Pirate Code, its federal law, and violating it can affect the federal funding to the university. Wake up, and come into the 21st century. The quicker the school admits it screwed up, and reinstates the teams, the quicker it moves on. Otherwise it can find itself under a potentially very intense investigation, and can spend more money trying to defend its particularly moronic decision than it saved from cutting programs. This is about gender equity, and Cal is out of compliance. If it refuses to fix things, sue ladies, it’s your right, and it’s the right thing to do.